[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
meta.sj at gmail.com
Sun May 9 06:45:33 UTC 2010
> Marcus wrote:
>> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
>> The _real_ task of the foundation.
> "Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most
> persistently promoted by the same precise individual
> who began the "ethical breaching experiment" project
I wasn't thinking of privatemusings, but of Marcus's comment and the
recent comments on this bugzilla bug (about supporting ICRA):
Again, I'm generally opposed to this particular idea. But Marcus is
right about the foundation's role in supporting technical solutions
where needed. Community groups that need a well-defined technical
solution should ask boldly for it.
> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
> The infrastructure would be technically simple.
Yes. Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.
David Levy writes:
> Deletions are easily reversible. Multi-wiki image transclusion
> removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations
> from Wikimedia projects? Less so.
True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
> (BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?)
No, he gets an Instigator flag, enabling him to chiefly instigate an
argument with the Cunctator on any page.
More information about the foundation-l